This is being portrayed in some circles as the electorate simply being in an anti-incumbent mood, but only three municipalities moved from having a rightist (UMP) mayor to having a Socialist mayor, while at least 155 moved the other way, with some parts of the French press calling this a droitisation (rightward movement). This is the first time since the Socialists won power in 2012 that the people of France have had the chance to weigh in on the Socialist's policies.

The big surprise, of course, was the showing of the National Front, labeled a 'far right' party that has taken a firm stand against unlimited Muslim immigration. They won something like 15 mayoral elections with respectable majorities, and as Marine Le Pen said on election night, they have now come of age as France's third party. In the next national election in 2017,the FN could well end up being the kingmakers in France's coalition government. The test now will be to see whether the new FN mayors govern effectively and whether the party can build on this showing in the Senatorial elections scheduled for this September.

France's Socialist President François Hollande has already forced Socialist Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault to 'resign', one of many ministers in Hollande's cabinet who look to be getting the axe. Significantly, Ayrault's replacement is none other than former Interior Minister Manuel Valls, who is considered to be on the right wing of the Socialist Party and is personally popular with the electorate in general. Among other things, Valls, Spanish-born but a naturalized French citizen has come in favir of curbing immigration and repealing France's 35 hour work week, a Socialist policy.

Hollande, in a pre-recorded televised speech also said it was time for a "new phase". He made reference to unspecified tax cuts and an equally unspecified cut of 50-billion euros in government spending. These measures are not going to resonate well with Hollande's Socialist base.

Government spokespeople announced that other changes in ministers won't be announced until tomorrow at the earlist and that Hollande and Valls will collaborate on the new appointments.

Here's a uniquely French touch. One name being considered or a major ministry is none other than Segolene Royal, the former French Socialist presidential candidate. She is also Hollande's former 'partner' (they never married) whom Hollande first began living with in 1978 and had 4 children with before he dumped her in 2007 after she lost the presidential race to begin living with his next 'partner', French journalist Valérie Trierweiler -= whom he dumped this year in favor of an actress 20 years his junior, Julie Gayet!

If Royal gets into the government, il y aura une réunion d'intéressant,n'est pa?

According to according to a new review of internal Immigration and Customs Enforcement data, the Obama Administration is deliberately violating immigration laws on a large scale and refusing to deport illegal aliens who have committed serious crimes.

A new report compiled by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)that reviewed this data revealed that the Obama administration released 35 percent (over 68,000) of all illegal aliens convicted of serious crimes back into the U.S. general population when according to our laws they should have been deported. In fact, there are almost a million illegal aliens (872,504, according to ICE's own data) who actually have deportation orders filed but who are still here, because ICE is not making it a priority to apprehend them.

'Criminal aliens', according to ICE's definition are those who have been convicted of a misdemeanor or felony that is not a traffic violation. So Driving Under the Influence or even vehicular manslaughter aren't being counted in this calculation of 'criminal aliens'.

The CIS revue shows that in 2013, ICE targeted only 195,000, or 25 percent, out of 722,000 potentially aliens, And most of these aliens were only 'targeted' after incarceration for a local arrest.

In other words, they're deliberately not looking for them.One can only imagine what this does to the morale of those ICE agents actually committed to trying to enforce our laws.

“According to ICE personnel, the vast gap between the number of encounters reported and the number of aliens put on the path to removal exists because officers are not permitted to file charges against aliens who do not fall into the administration’s narrowly defined criteria for enforcement, regardless of the criminal charges or the circumstances in which the alien was identified,” the report says.

Since June 2011, when the Obama administration first decided to not enforce our laws with “prosecutorial discretion” policies ICE arrests of illegal aliens have declined by 40 percent.

“The Obama administration and anti-enforcement activist groups have tried to portray the number of departures as ‘record-breaking’ and indicative of robust immigration enforcement. They have tried to support this claim by showing that the number of departures credited to ICE is higher than ever before,” the report reads. “However, an independent analysis of ICE records obtained in a lawsuit showed that ICE was able to achieve these ‘record’ departures only because the agency was taking credit for removing a large number of individuals who were apprehended by the Border Patrol. Such cases made up the majority of ICE’s reported deportations in 2013, but they had never been counted that way in previous administrations.”

That also applies to illegal aliens who've been apprehended and are a slam dunk for deportation. For years now, ICE has simply been deliberately failing to prosecute most of them by presidential diktat, supposedly to 'concentrate on criminal aliens'. Of course, this new report shows they're not even doing that much - and public safety be damned.

“The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that immigration enforcement in America has collapsed,” Sessions said. “Even those with criminal convictions are being released. DHS is a department in crisis. Secretary [Jeh] Johnson must reject the President’s demands to weaken enforcement further and tell him that his duty, and his officers’ duty, is to enforce the law – not break it. As Homeland Secretary, Mr. Johnson is tasked with ensuring the public safety and the rule of law. But Secretary Johnson is not meeting these duties.”

“American citizens have a legal and moral right to the protections our immigration laws afford — at the border, the interior and the workplace. The administration has stripped these protections and adopted a government policy that encourages new arrivals to enter illegally or overstay visas by advertising immunity from future enforcement.”

“Comments from top Administration officials, such as Attorney General Holder’s claim that amnesty is a civil right, or Vice President Biden’s claim that those here illegally are all U.S. citizens (apparently including someone whose visa expired yesterday), demonstrate the administration’s increasing belief in an open borders policy the American public has always rejected.”

“The Administration’s lawless policies have not only impaired public safety but increased economic suffering for millions of vulnerable Americans by depriving them of their jobs and wages,” he said. “Unfortunately, Congressional Democrats continue to empower this lawlessness. Republicans must work to end it.”

That on its own is an astounding statement. Did you ever imagine our Republic as a place where simple public safety and enforcing our existing laws could be characterized with a large degree of accuracy as a partisan issue?

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher's Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week's question: If You Were President Obama, How Would You Handle The Situation In Ukraine?

Liberty's Spirit: Keeping Russia out of the G-8 was a good move. Also finding a way to limit Russia's ability to sell their oil and natural gas on the open market would also hit Russia in the pocketbook. Of course a wounded bear is not so easily contained and it is a fine line between showing international condemnation and making that bear even more hostile. Remember a wounded Germany after WW1, instead of being cowed by sanctions and world derision turned to the Nazis and hence we ended up with the horror that was WW2. A wounded and angry Russian bear could turn us back into the bad-old-days of the Cold War.

Russia is in a highly vulnerable state, economically and internationally. We do not want to make the same mistake with Russia that we made with post WW1 Germany. However, unless you are willing to go to war over Crimea (you need to ask yourself, and answer honestly, is this incident worth the lives of YOUR children before you decided military action is tenable) then the only alternative is economic sanctions and keeping Russia out of organizations like the G-8. Of course the reality is that the entire first world has to be in line in order for there to be any real effect upon Russia. However, Europe as usual does not have the stomach for anything but specious pronouncements as they are beholden to Russia for their energy needs, especially Germany. Also there are too many financial and economic ties to Russia for any one nation to truly do anything about Russia's aggression. Businesses worldwide would have to be willing to take a huge financial hit if they boycotted Russia and that is not something that anyone is going to make happen anytime soon. You can ask what is the tipping point? Honestly considering that the world's red line (not just Obama's) has continued to be crossed when dealing with the Iranian nuclear bomb, nor stopped the slaughter in Syria, it is highly doubtful that anyone has the desire to really do anything about Putin.

However, it would be good to have those in the White House who understand that rhetoric really gets you nowhere with someone like Putin. That a "Smartpower" policy would have to have a policy of decisive containment (sadly we are dependent on Russia for our space program now), energy independence (no Keystone pipeline and a refusal to open up areas to drill leaves us energy vulnerable to the likes of Putin) and allies that believe you are on their side (canceling the missile shield in Poland leaves vulnerable all those east European allies who are now once again in fear of Russian hegemony). Obama's foreign policy has completely ignored these three major policy areas in dealing with Russia. In fact, in the case of the missile shield and nuclear downgrade of our military, Obama completely capitulated to Russian demands from the outset.

Now would Putin be so aggressive if he thought that the US had descent leadership? He did invade Georgia while Bush was in office and compared to Obama, Bush was highly aggressive and continually attacked for his "cowboy diplomacy, aka military actions." So the truth of the matter is that it doesn't necessarily matter who is in the White House when you are dealing with an oligarch like Putin. However, containment of Putin's aggression is possible if you practice "Smartpower." Something the Obama national security team never has done and is totally incapable of producing.

GrEaT sAtAn"S gIrLfRiEnD: Commonwealth Russia's annexation of Crimea is gon be like a short-term political high at home that will eventually fizzle out. Long term though, Russia gains nothing from the annexation but a bleak peninsula of no economic or military importance, and the distrust and/or hatred of her neighbors.

A campaign of insurgency - funded by interested nation states with all the faux cover that terms like non state actors can provide would be interesting to say the least.

Nasty things like IEDs or better - EFPs (explosive formed penetrators) detonating amidst periodic sniper attacks would certainly queer the mix of Commonwealth's adventures in her Near Abroad if hooked up with a myriad of 'Rebel' groups in Crimea and their Public Relations wave. Rebel Radio and TV could play on underground chic - particularly in old Ost Europa

Spectacular attacks will keep the spotlight on the area, granting internat'l interest and attention.

Commando style attacks on communications centers - storming, seizing and holding TV and radio stations would have a short life span as Russia would most likely play back with a heavy hand - thus sparking the insurgency to actually launch attacks outside of Crimea - even in Mommie Russia herself.

The last thing we want,in my opinion, is any kind of military action. Ever since Barack Hussein Obama was a Senator, he's demonstrated a disdain and a profound disrespect for our military, so the idea of any kind of action while he's C-in-C is out of the question if we can possibly avoid it.

What would I do about the Ukraine? Assuming that Obama was out of the picture, John Kerry was out closing in on another rich widow and I had total control over things, I would schedule a sitdown with President Putin for some serious horsetrading and a discussion of our future relationship.

I would happily offer to swap the entire Ukraine if necessary in a covert agreement in exchange for Russia looking the other way and keeping stuhm while we dealt with Iran's nukes. We have no interests there. Especially if I offered this carrot with a regretful mention of my being forced to resort to the ultimate stick if we couldn't agree - barring Russia and anyone trading with them from doing transactions via the US banking system. Since oil trades are delineated in dollars and the world banking system flows through New York, this would be the ultimate sanction on Russia, one they couldn't get around. Plus the Europeans and the Chinese would be forced to go along because of their exports and financial dealings here in America. What we're doing now is mere pinpricks.

I think there's a very good chance Putin would go for it, especially since dealing with me, he'd be pretty certain I planned to solve that particular problem with Iran anyway, agreement of no agreement.

You see, I look at it from the standpoint of what benefits us and gives Putin a little something to save face with. That's exactly the opposite of what you're seeing with Obama and Kerry.

I'm not particularly worried about Putin expanding to any of the other countries near his border aside from Moldava,perhaps. With the exception of Finland, they're all NATO allies who could call on Article Five of the treaty, and Putin knows it. He's a rational actor. Russia is not in a position to fight that kind of war right now, and going after the Finns would be a serious mistake. The Russians tried that before and it was not pleasant for them in the least.

The Glittering Eye: There isn't much that can be done at this point. The economic sanctions that are palatable to the Europeans aren't enough to discourage the Russians so we're limited to ineffectual gestures and condemnation. The president has already condemned Russia's annexation of Crimea and repeating it won't make it more effective. Less to, if anything.

Most of all we shouldn't get cozier with Ukraine's government. There's little reason to believe that they're freedom-loving liberal democrats. Indeed, in all likelihood they're the same corrupt kleptocrats that the Yanukovych and Tymoshenko governments were.

We might have been able to do something if we'd started twenty years ago. We could have tried to slow the transition from the Soviet system to the present one, allowing liberal institutions to gain strength. We could have given the fledgling Russia a little more support. We didn't need to treat them like vanquished foes. We could have discouraged the expansion of the EU and NATO into former Warsaw Pact and Soviet countries or, at least, slowed it. That expansion, coupled with the interventions in Serbia, Kosovo, and Libya, convinced the Russians that NATO wasn't a defensive alliance but an anti-Russian alliance.

We've also over-emphasized the importance of individuals, first Yeltsin, now Putin. But that's a somewhat different subject.

Every one penny drop in the price of oil takes money out of the Putin's pockets. We can influence the price of oil by a) producing more and b) consuming less. Lowering the price of oil is a two-edged sword. It will hurt Russia and it will help China.

The Razor: This is an easy question: I’d handle it exactly as Obama has.

It’s impossible to learn something new when one knows everything. Obama believes he knows the situation better than anyone on his staff, which is why he pursues this policy. Since he knows everything and implemented this policy, he cannot change it.

From his narcissistic perspective, he has done nothing wrong. It’s Putin who refuses to see reality, which from an outside perspective is Obama’s reality, not the reality that exists outside his own mind. From Obama’s perspective Putin is acting irrationally and almost insanely because Putin refuses to acknowledge the post-Cold War/Transnational reality where Russia is no longer a powerful nationalistic state. Because Obama is completely unable to perceive the world in any other way, let alone from another person’s perspective in an objective, unbiased way, he cannot understand Putin’s actions. They seem random and disconnected; it must puzzle him – and I wonder if he believes Putin is being poisoned or becoming mentally disturbed.

But from a perspective other than Obama’s we can see Putin’s action as quite rational when viewed in nationalistic terms. While I personally have wished Russia and China would see the world in a broader perspective, one that recognizes that international relations in the 21st century is not a zero-sum game, I understand that if a person sees you as an opponent you must treat him as an opponent. No amount of wishing is going to stop him from trying to hurt you. Therefore we have to react to Putin (and China, which is on deck to create the same mayhem in South Asia that Putin is making in Eastern Europe) in a way that he understands; by undermining his actions through diplomatic and military means when necessary. This would mean supporting rebel elements throughout the fringes of the Russian Empire, arming the Ukrainians, and generally attacking Russia through all means necessary short of a hot-war.

Luckily for Putin he has plenty of time before Obama leaves office, and that time may grow even longer if America elects an Obama-like Hillary Clinton or an isolationist-leaning Rand Paul. It’s a once in a lifetime opportunity to expand the Russian Empire, and from Putin’s perspective he’d be crazy not to take it.

Simply Jews : Thankfully I am not in the POTUS shoes at the moment, because in my opinion the man is in a bind in the current situation.

Obama and USA don't really have a military option, aside of a doomsday scenario, which will be sheer madness, taking into account the questionable qualities of both sides of the conflict. To support the (ostensibly) pro-Western side in the Ukraine means extending the patronage to a big group of raving ultra-nationalist with roots in the Ukraine stained past. So I would exclude the military option anyway.

On the political front the POTUS has a totally immovable adversary in Vladimir Putin. Not only Putin has demonstrated several times during the recent years that he is a better poker player than Obama, he is also immune to political pressure, having unprecedentedly strong support at home. And not caring much for the world's opinion, it has to be added.

Economically POTUS' hands are bound, at least in the short term. Trying to apply economic pressure at the moment, with Europe being held hostage by Putin's hand on the gas and oil taps, will almost certainly leave US alone in the battlefield.

The only remaining way is to establish the infrastructure for replacement of Russian source of gas and oil by US and others, which will take time. This, however, should be done anyway, since Russian expansion is by no means limited to the Crimea adventure. Having the Europe fueling solution in place, Obama then can seriously move to the economic blockade of Russia - which in the long run is the only measure that could endanger Putin and his KGB cronies at the helm.

Ask Marion: If I were President Obama, I would never have found myself in his position with Putin and the Ukraine to start with. Weakness and/or dysfunction begets weakness and dysfunction!

I am a Sarah Palin kind of gal… so would be a Ronald Reagan kind of president in a skirt! However, that being said:

If I were President Obama I would start by keeping my mouth shut unless I was ready to act:

First: I will reverse my decision to halt the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. America will go ahead as originally planned and build the missile shield, but an accelerated basis. That means U.S. military personal will be working alongside Polish and Czech military to construct and operate the systems. The missile shield is designed to protect Europe from Iranian missiles, but you get the point. Uniformed U.S. military will soon be stationed near the Russian border.

Second: I will reverse course on the defense budget. Your defense minister just announced Russia is negotiating basing rights in seven nations around the world. He also said you were rebuilding old Soviet era military bases in central Asia. Your parliament has just voted unanimously to invade Ukraine. In light of that, this is no time for my Secretary of Defense to announce we’re gutting our military.

Third: I will allow the Keystone Pipeline to go ahead, again on an accelerated basis. That will not only give a boost to the American and Canadian economies, it will start driving down the price of oil.

Fourth: I will give my wholehearted support for fracking and horizontal drilling. American energy companies will now develop the vast oil and gas resources that lie, literally, under our feet. We’ve seen the U.S. go from natural gas importers to exporters in less than five years and the price of gas fall accordingly. We will now do the same with oil. Analysts expect the price of oil could decline by 20%.

I don’t have to tell you what that means for the Russian economy. Your economy and government are solely dependent on energy revenues. You need oil above $90 to meet payroll. It should settle well below that within a few years time. And free markets are a great thing – they anticipate change and will start short selling you now. That will make it difficult for you to pay for food imports, subsidies, your military buildup, and of course the extremely expensive the Sochi Olympics.

Fifth: I will send a trade delegation to Poland and other countries in Central Europe to explore ways of helping them use fracking technologies to develop their own gas reserves. Chevron and Shell have already signed a $13 billion deal with Ukraine. I expect others to follow.

At the same time I will throw roadblocks in front of any American energy company that seeks to develop your eastern Siberian fields. Your existing oil fields in western Siberia have, maybe, a decade left. You need our technology to develop new ones. You’re not getting it.

Sixth: It’s time we refocus on Western Europe’s over-dependence on Russian natural gas. We will explore ways to export our new found natural gas surpluses to Europe by underwriting building of LNG terminals to accept imports from America. And while we’re at it, we will reassure our NATO allies, especially those that used to be under Soviet control, that Article Five of the NATO charter is still valid. If you are setting your sights on them next, think again. It’s all for one and one for all.

Seventh: It’s high time we expand our relations with the oil and gas rich nations of central Asia. We will extend invitations to each of them to visit Washington, to see how America and American energy companies might work with them to build pipelines to get their energy exports to Europe and beyond bypassing Russia.

Time for some real leadership… of course that would mean that this administration wanted the U.S. to succeed!?!

The Independent Sentinel: If I were in Mr. Obama's place, I would put the missile defense shield in Poland and send arms to Ukraine. After all, we sent arms to the Syrians and we apparently give Russia tactical weaponry for free.

If Putin thinks he can just walk into Ukraine and not pay much of a price, he will do it. The reverse is true.

If I had the same mindset as Mr. Obama, however, I would challenge Putin to a golf match.

Well, there you have it.

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y'know?

Friday, March 28, 2014

You might recall that a month ago, I wrote a piece about the outrageuos behavior of California Democrats in the State Senate who refused to suspend two members. One, Ron Calderon,had been indicted for 24 counts of corruption, which included accepting thousands of dollars in bribes from undercover FBI agents posing as a film studio owner and a Southern California hospital executive as well as wire fraud, money laundering and falsification of tax returns. Another Rod Wright had actually been convicted of 8 counts of voter fraud and perjury.

Instead of suspending them, the Democrats simply had them take a 'leave of absence' in order to preserve their supermajority while the two continue to receive their full salary of $ $95,291 per year courtesy of California's taxpayers.

Recently a third California Democrat state senator, Leland Yee, was charged in a federal criminal complaint this week with accepting bribes and coordinating an international gun-running operation. Oh yes, he's also an outspoken voice in favor of gun confiscation. There was also an attempt to put Yee on a 'leave of absence'.

Instead, the stench got so bad and the public reaction was so negative that finally, even Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg had to take action. In a vote of 28-1 in the 40 member senate, all three senators were formally suspended, which means that while they still collect their salaries, the trio are prohibited from exercising any power of their office until the pending criminal cases against them have been resolved.And California's Democrat supermajority in the state senate is history.

The lone senator to vote against the resolution, SR38, was Republican Sen. Joel Anderson of Alpine, because he argued that all three should be expelled outright and that it was wrong for the three disgraced senators to continue receiving their salaries.

It remains to see how things ends up. Certainly I would expect Governor Jerry Brown to spend state money on special elections or apoint temporary Democrats to these seats. But with elections due to be held anyway this year, it might be that they simply let things ride until November.

In any event, for now the Senate Democrats are going to have to work with Senate Republicans and take their considerations into account. And that's a good thing.

According to what Senior Fatah official Jibril Rajoub told the AFP after a meeting between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and US envoy Martin Indyk, the Israelis have refused to release the last batch of 28 terrorist killers convicted in Israeli civil courts:

“The Israeli government has informed us through the American mediator that it will not abide by its commitment to release the fourth batch of Palestinian prisoners scheduled for tomorrow, Saturday 29," Rajoub said.

Rajoub, by the way is another one of those moderate Palestinians President Obama says is ready for peace. Only a short time ago on Lebanese TV, (in Arabic,of course) Rajoub said, "I swear,if we had a nuclear weapon we'd have used it on Israel this morning."

The reason the Israelis didn't follow through is simple. There was absolutely no sign from the Palestinian Authority's unelected dictator Mahmoud Abbas being willing to make any concessions whatsoever in his demands in order to craft a peace agreement, no progress on the talks and no commitment from Abbas to extend the talks past the April 29th deadline unless he was rewarded with even more goodies, just for the dubious pleasure of the Israelis hearing him continue to say no repeatedly.

Freeing these murderers is a very divisive issue in Israel as you can imagine, especially since Abbas and the PA insist on making heroes out of them and rewarding them with money, celebrations and fanfare.So the Israelis have apparently decided that Abbas' days of take, take, take in exchange for absolutely nothing are over, and understandably so.

Even the normally craven Tzipi Livni came out in favor of this, saying said last week that there was never an “automatic commitment to release prisoners unrelated to making progress in negotiations.”

Abbas and the PA will undoubtedly go to the UN and attempt to get the UN to agree to their demands unilaterally. As Rajoub said, “Not releasing the prisoners will mark the beginning of the efforts in the international community to challenge the legality of the occupation.”

Of course, the PA was always planning on going to the UN from day one. Even the PA chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat admitted earlier this month that Abbas was staying in talks just to get the terrorist releases.They never had any intention of crafting an actual peace agreement with Israel, but merely wanted to get whatever they could get for free for as long as it worked. They will of course, use this as an excuse to justify breaking the treaties they signed on the Oslo Accords and the Road Map, but again, they were always going to do that anyway.

And here is where it's going to get interesting. Now that the Israelis are unwilling to be pushed any further, what happens next? The U.S. is also a signatory to the Oslo Accords, and America, the EU and the UN are signatories to the Road Map,both of which insist that the move the PA is making to resolve this without an agreement between themselves and the Israelis is against international law and will not be tolerated.

Most of the EU and of course the 57 nation Muslim bloc in the UN will undoubtedly go along with this. So will a number of smaller third world countries that depend on Muslim good will and/or Arab oil.

So it comes down to what the United States decides to do.President Obama, John Kerry and anyone else connected with this knows that it was Abbas and the PA who rejected Kerry's framework and precipitated this, and anyone looking at this intelligently knew it was coming, even if our president and our secretary of state didn't.

It's a given that Abbas and the PA aren't going to suffer any consequences from Barack Obama for their rejectionism and intransigence in blowing up what was supposed to be a signature achievement for the Obama/Kerry team. But will the Obama team actually allow the UN to pull this off, especially as the Israelis won't comply and no one's going to make them or really has any real interest in making them? Will they allow the UN to make a mockery of what remains of its influence? Was President Obama lying when he said this just a couple of weeks ago? :

"The U.S. commitment to Israel’s security is not subject to periodic policy differences. That’s a rock-solid commitment, and it’s one that I’ve upheld proudly throughout my tenure. I think the affection that Americans feel for Israel, the bond that our people feel and the bipartisan support that people have for Israel is not going to be affected.

So it is not realistic nor is it my desire or expectation that the core commitments we have with Israel change during the remainder of my administration or the next administration."

Of, course, he said a lot of things that day, and many of them contradict each other as usual. I have my own expectations, but stay tuned....

Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has been in the news a lot recently. He 's been accusing Republicans of being unpatriotic and 'disrespectful to our commander-in chief' for opposing a Ukraine sanctions bill loaded with corrupt earmarks that have nothing to do with the legislation, in contrast to the clean bill passed bu the House. And his latest mantra has been the Koch Brothers, whose he's accused of everything from bribery and corruption to poisoning your children's puppies.

Senator Reid is the same man who called President Bush 'a loser' during wartime, who opposed the surge which enabled us to exit Iraq and along with his fellow Democrats, Senators Clinton, Obama and Biden did everything they could to sabotage our military efforts and play games with funding while our troops were under fire in in AfPak and Iraq, something they later admitted to Obama Secretary of Defense Robert Gate's anger and astonishment was 'just about politics and 2008'.

Matthew Continetti at the Washington Free Beacon has a must read column on this corrupt, obscene tumor on the body politic that simply must be read. Here's a healthy slice:

Another man might have assumed, correctly, that launching a campaign of insult and insinuation against two billionaires would result in renewed attention to his own finances. Not Harry Reid. The Senate Democratic leader since 2005, and the Senate majority leader since 2007, is not one to reflect before speaking. His mouth runs far ahead of his brain.

The fact that Harry Reid’s political and influence operation includes his five children has been established for some time. A few weeks ago, when I first heard Reid accuse private citizens of being un-American, I dredged up a Los Angeles Times article from 2003 with the headline, “In Nevada, the Name to Know Is Reid.” Chuck Neubauer and Richard T. Cooper’s meticulously researched and reported article begins with the story of the “Clark County Conservation of Land and Natural Resources Act of 2002,” a land bill of the sort that puts people to sleep. “What Reid did not explain” when he introduced the bill in the Senate, Neubauer and Cooper wrote, “was that the bill promised a cavalcade of benefits to real estate developers, corporations, and local institutions that were paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in lobbying fees to his sons’ and son-in-law’s firms.” I wonder why he left that part out.

Firms tied to the Reid family, the Los Angeles Times reported, earned more than $2 million from 1998 to 2002 “from special interests that were represented by the kids and helped by the senator in Washington.” How much more have they earned in the 11 years since this article was published? Land, energy, water, gaming, and mining—the Reids manage a diversified portfolio. They are not financial investors but political ones.

There's much more at the link about how this lying, corrupt tool has disgraced his office to enrich himself, while hiding behind his congressional immunity to slander far more honest men from the floor of the senate.

"I have to commend President Abbas," Obama said alongside the Palestinian leader. "He has been somebody who has consistently renounced violence, has consistently sought a diplomatic and peaceful solution that allows for two states, side by side, in peace and security; a state that allows for the dignity and sovereignty of the Palestinian people and a state that allows for Israelis to feel secure and at peace with their neighbors."

Abbas and the Palestinian Authority under his control have always glorified the murderers of Israeli civilians. Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah, after all, are the same folks who made child murderer Sami Kuntar an honorary 'Palestinian' citizen and gave him a hero's welcome after he was released in a prisoner swap. Abbas and his Fatah faction have made a point of naming public buildings and streets after murderers and teach their children about the virtues of killing Jews in their mosques, media and schools.

The Fogel family who lived in the Jewish community of Itamar were at home relaxing after the Sabbath on March 11, 2011 when two Palestinians affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) Hakim Awad and Amjad Muhammad Fawzi Awad carried out an 'operation' they had planned in advance. After cutting through a security fence, they broke into the Fogel's home and murdered five members of the family pictured above, including a 3-month-old baby. They butchered them without even the regard a slaughterer usually gives to an animal. They are on the PA's salary list, receiving top dollar because of the five life sentences they received.These are your tax dollars at work, courtesy of President Obama, the UN and the EU.

In our non-Council category, the winner was a simply masterful piece by John Hindraker over at Powerline, Washington Post Falls For Left-Wing Fraud, Embarrasses Itself [Updated With Post's Response] submitted by The Glittering Eye. John caught the WAPO red handed publishing a completely false story designed to libel the Koch Brothers for partisan political purposes. And to add to the mix, written by a reporter who is married to a democrat operative who works for the Obama Front group the Center For American Progress.

As Rush Limbaugh famously said, these people aren't journalists, but Democrat activists with a byline.

See you next week! Don't forget to tune in on Monday AM for this week's Watcher's Forum, as the Council and their invited special guests take apart one of the provocative issues of the day with short takes and weigh in...don't you dare miss it. And don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.....'cause we're cool like that!

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Some heartwarming coverage of our First Lady during her multimillion dollar taxpayer funded China vacay. Really, we're not worthy....

Speaking to a group of awestruck Chinese citizens, Michelle Obama recounted her years of oppression as a victim of racism and how she survived the American extermination camps. "There were laws in America that discriminated against people like me because of the color of our skin," said Michelle. A sharp inward gasp was heard as the interpreter finished her comment in Mandarin.Still haunted by laws that were no longer in effect when she was born, Michelle outlined her plight as she endured racism in Princeton University, and narrowly escaped death at Harvard Law School. Tears were seen streaming down the cheeks of some of the visibly moved Chinese citizens. Women in her audience especially were deeply touched as the First Lady revealed how she had to live paycheck to paycheck as a hospital administrator with a meager six digit income. "Sometimes we had to say no to caviar, or no to a really expensive Italian sports car because we just couldn't afford it," Michelle Obama recalled, her voice breaking, as one Chinese woman fainted and another one began sobbing uncontrollably.However, when Michelle recalled the glorious day when her husband was chosen as the Democrat Party candidate for president - the day when she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life - triumphant cheers broke out and she received a standing ovation.

In 2013, MSNBC lost 24 percent of its prime-time audience and 15 percent of its daytime viewers, and that trend has continued. While CNN and FOX also lost viewers, mainly because the market has expanded, MSNBC's is double the losses of CNN and four times those of Fox. And where it counts, on the money side, Fox and CNN are both growing while MSNBC is actually losing income.And in broadcasting, that's the wound that keeps on bleeding because it perpetuates a death spiral - your ads are harder to sell because your audience share is smaller so you end up continually lowering your prices, kind of like a rapidly aging hooker trying to compete with the younger, more in demand ones.

Like Air America, MSNBC was the result of a conscious, corporate decision to chase the far Left demographic. It was always a place to find the most outre' Bush bashing and worship at the shrine of Obama and other far Left icons.

Well, Dubbyah has ridden off into the sunset and Barack Obama...well, let's be kind and just say that a lot of people have come to a new realization about what that hopey-changey crap really meant. And therein lies a problem.

Like Air America, MSNBC is a one trick pony and that is deadly boring to anyone but True Believers in search of an echo chamber. In the end, even many of them eventually zone out. And as the political climate is changing, MSNBC can't move with it without losing the core audience it has built up.

FOX doesn't have that problem. While the network definitely carries conservative commentary, they also use Lefties like Juan Williams or Susan Estrich as a counterbalance,so the spark is there. And FOX also carries a fair amount of straight news, regardless of how President Obama and his fellow Leftists demonize FOX as 'biased'. Most people who watch FOX for any length of time realize that FOX makes a real attempt to live up to the network's motto, 'Fair And Balanced', which is why FOX has maintained its position as the number one cable news network.

On MSNBC, most of the programming won't even interview conservatives let alone have them on the air
even as occasional panel members. The only real host who can even come close to being conservative is Joe Scarborough on 'Morning Joe', and even he pretty much toes the Leftist line of things like gun control, the Tea Party and amnesty for illegal aliens. Also, he and Mika, a major Lefty, have their own back and forth, which provides a bit of the spark needed to keep a show like that entertaining. Aside from 'Morning Joe', it's pretty much the George Soros network, all far Left talking points all the time.

Ironically, the best scenario for this changing would be for the GOP to retain the House, take the Senate and actually elect a conservative in 2016. If that happens, we might once again see MSNBC's audience increase as die hard Lefties look for a place on the dial that reflects their own worldview and prejudices.

Wednesday, March 26, 2014

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry hurriedly bailed from his trip to Rome to fly to Amman and do what he could to salvage the Arab/Israeli peace talks.

After meeting with Jordan's King Abdullah II, Kerry met with Mahmoud Abbas, the PA's unelected dictator, in an effort to get some kind of commitment from him he could take to the Israelis to show that Abbas was actually serious about continuing the negotiations. They reportedly met for four hours, and in the end Mahmoud Abbas basically told Kerry to go pound sand.

In fact, as he told Kerry, Abbas won't even discuss Kerry's over-hyped framework for a peace agreement further until the Israelis release the last batch of the 100 convicted terrorist killers they were arm twisted into agreeing to just to get Abbas to the table.Just to show you how cynical this was, the United States specifically asked that Israel not release any terrorists who have the blood of American citizens on their hands...but those who only murdered Israelis, of course, or even their fellow Arabs are just fine with President Obama and his team.

The Israelis are concerned that Abbas will simply accept the last shipment of terrorist killers free of charge and then simply bow out of the talks entirely, and with good reason.

The Israelis see that Abbas is rejecting every point Kerry included in the framework, including not committing to an end to the conflict, refusing to give up the idea of flooding Israel with genocidal refugees and refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. So the Israelis are quite rightly saying, 'why bother to release more of these murderers? What's the point?' Especially since Abbas won't commit to extending the talks as Kerry wants anyway.

For that, Abbas wants more, you see. He wants a commitment to kick loose even more imprisoned terrorists and a building freeze in Jerusalem and all of Judea and Samaria, even in the places like Ariel and the Gush Etzion bloc that everyone agrees are going to remain part of Israel no matter what.

Kerry asked Abbas to send PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat, formerly the right fork of Yasser Arafat's tongue to Rome to try and work something out, but as Yediot reported, Abbas turned him down flat.

The punchline, of course is that Mahmoud Abbas never had any intention of seriously pursuing peace talks with Israel anyway on any realistic basis. The intention was always to get as much as they could out of the Israelis, and then go to the UN.

Judge Joseph Johnston has ruled that The Massachusetts Department of Families And Children (DFC) will have 'permanent custody' of 15-year-old Justina Pelletier, taking her away from her parents in spite of her own wishes and her rapidly declining health in state custody.

This case is a textbook example of child abuse promulgated by the legal system and an embedded bureaucracy, and it is worth looking at to see how far out of hand our ruling class has gotten.

Fourteen months ago, Justina, a Connecticut teen was being treated for mitochondrial disease, a group of rare genetic disorders affecting cellular energy production.Her physician who had been treating her, Dr. Mark Korson at Tufts, wanted the girl to visit gastroenterologist Dr. Alejandro Flores at Boston Children's Hospital, who had treated Justina at Tufts in the past. Being loving and concerned parents, the Pelletiers made the appointment with Dr. Flores and duly went to Boston Children's Hospital to have Justina seen.

When they got there, instead of seeing Dr. Flores, Justina was essentially kidnapped. She was taken to emergency where a resident refused to let her see Dr. Flores. Instead, he decided that this was a psychiatric case and sent Justina to a psychologist who diagnosed her with somatoform disorder -- a mental condition in which a patient experiences symptoms that are real but are psychosomatic.

When the Pelletiers rejected the new psychiatric diagnosis and wanted to bring Justina back to Tufts, the hospital first tried to force the girl's parents to sign papers admitting her as a psychiatric patient and when they refused and understandably became insistent at taking their daughter out of Boston Children's, the hospital got the state Department of Family and Children involved and accused the parents of medical child abuse.

They were not permitted to bring Justina home or to another facility. Instead, the teen was kept at Boston Children’s psychiatric ward for nearly a year where her physical condition deteriorated while the parents unsuccessfully fought the system to get Justina released.The DCF has allowed the parents only one hour per week to visit their daughter, but always with DCF personnel present. DCF would not allow the parents to photograph their daughter, and even filed a motion to hold Lou Pelletier in contempt of court for speaking to national media.

"Tufts was working fine with her, diagnosed medically, going to school, ice skating and doing all those things," Lou Pelletier said. "Look at her then and look at her now."

The DCF also has refused to provide the medical care Justina's condition requires, will not allow her access to a priest or to communion (she's Catholic) has refused to make any accommodations for her education, with the result that she is now almost two years behind her classmates in school.

Three weeks ago, Judge Johnston approved a written agreement transferring care back to Tufts Medical Center from Boston Children’s Hospital. That still hasn't been done, as Boston Children's has refused to make any appointments with the doctors there in spite of Justina's condition.

This decision by Judge Johnston was in response to a motion presented by the 15-year-old’s court-appointed lawyer and the lawyers for her parents, Linda and Lou Pelletier. It called for the girl's parents to be awarded “conditional custody” of their daughter.

Instead, the judge has granted permanent custody of Justina Pellatier to the DFC...who have done absolutely nothing to help her.

In his order, Johnston noted that the court considered granting conditional custody to the Pelletiers but “very concerning conduct … does not give this court any confidence they will comply with the conditions of custody.” The evidence? That Lou Pelletier once threatened a DFC social worker, who was afterward removed from the case, and oh yes..the media presence.

“Instead of engaging in quality visits with Justina, the parents use profanity directed at MA DCF personnel in Justina’s presence,” Johnston’s ruling said.

Johnston also included that he thinks Lou and Linda Pelletier should be “psychologically and clinically evaluated,” but refused to have the state of Massachusetts do it, insisiting that it must be coordinated through the State of Connecticut’s own DCF.

You bring your daughter in for medical treatment, she gets kidnapped, you see her dying in front of your eyes and you lose it with some heartless bureaucrat drone who's keeping her prisoner? And when you finally get fed up with doing the dance for months and go to the media to try to shed some sunlight on what's happening to your child, you need to be “psychologically and clinically evaluated?”

To tell you the truth, if the Pellatiers hadn't done that, I'd think they needed to be psychologically evaluated.

This is one of those canary in the coalmine moments. It is the State shoving our noses in the fact that they own our children and they know what's best, and we're just the sperm and egg donors.

What's next? On May 25th, Judge Johnston is expected revisit the decision to award permanent custody in a follow-up court hearing on May 25. His ruling leaves it up to the state DCF to decide whether or when Justina should be returned to her family, which means she could end up in state care until she turns 18. If she survives.

Meanwhile, the Pelltiers haven't given up. They're appealing the decision and have filed a writ of habeus corpus against Massachusetts for wrongful imprisonment. Hopefully this will get Justina freed by order of the Appellate courts, although it might just be that the attention this is generating could get Justina Pellatier freed sooner..perhaps at the review hearing in May.

The sort of leadership that would rewrite the Freedom of Information Act secretly without consulting congress. The sort of leadership that would gut an existing law to shield himself and any 'White House equities' - which are anything this president says they are - from being lawfully released under the FOIA Act for as long as he chooses to stonewall them. The kind of honest, transparent leadership that would commit an illegal and unconstitutional act three months after he was sworn in and violate his oath of office with impunity.

The fault isn't in Caesar, but in ourselves in that we choose to be underlings. Yes, the shame is ours, in that we choose to put up with this without screaming bloody murder and insisting justice be done.

Sheer madness.

Welcome to the Watcher's Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the 'sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday morning.

You can, too! Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

To bring something to my attention simply head over to Joshuapundit and post the title a link to the piece you want considered along with an e-mail address ( which won't be published) in the comments section no later than Monday 6PM PST in order to be considered for our honorable mention category. Then return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week when it comes out Wednesday morning

Simple, no?

It's a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members. while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Caroline Glick has a new book out entitled 'The Israeli Solution: A One State Plan For Peace In The Middle East.'

As someone who has enjoyed her writing and clear thinking on this subject for some time, I regret to say that while she gets most of her facts right, I think she makes some unfortunate if well meaning miscalculations as far as her idea for solving the situation goes.

Ms. Glick's solution is simple; forget about the Two State solution. Israel should annex all of Judea and Samaria, put it under Israeli law, depose the Palestinian Authority and offer the inhabitants Israeli citizenship and, as she puts it, a better life for themselves and their children in "a pluralistic, liberal democracy with a first-world economy."

Here's why her solution is impractical at this point. First off, let's not forget that Israel tried this between the '67 was and the First Intifada, thinking they could live with these people in peace. Israel built schools and universities, hospitals, created jobs and a decent economy for the locals. And in the end, it was a horrific failure. It will even be worse now, with two decades of indoctrination by Arafat and Abbas, and Hamas (whom these people voted for to rule them in a free election) to stir the pot.If most of them weren't willing to buy into what she's offering then, why would they now? Even in Israel itself, there are almost 300,000 Arabs whom identify themselves as Palestinians and refuse to take Israeli citizenship. How successful to you think Israel is going to be with 1.5 million or so Palestinian Muslims who have been radicalized to hate Jews like poison for twenty plus years?

In fact, my lil' Birdie within the Palestinian Authority e-mailed me laughing about this just the other day. He's said for a long time that Abbas should disband the PA and just drop the whole mess in Israel's lap. Abbas and the Old Guard with their Jordanian passports and the money they've stolen would mostly depart, but the Hamas and Fatah commanders who would be left would embark on another massive war against Israel's civilians. The massive terrorism and the inevitable Israeli crackdown, complete with the biased press coverage and a plentiful supply of Pallywood 'bleeders' would make things infinitely worse while solving NOTHING. Remember, the Palestinians now have two fully equipped and trained combat infantry brigades courtesy of Gen.Keith Dayton and the American Taxpayer. The IDF could certainly defeat them, but the cost in PR and bloodshed would be horrendous.

Also, she assumes that the UN, President Obama and the EU would accept an Israeli annexation of this kind. All of them are totally invested in the idea of a second Arab Palestinian state, and in the case of the EU there are Muslim voters to consider.And as dysfunctional as 'Palestine' is and as much money as it costs them, it's what they want whether it makes sense or not. The Israelis unfortunately started this when they bought into Oslo, and the international backlash would be intense.You would see real claims of 'occupation' at that point and a spur for Obama, the EU and the UN to actually do something about it.

Annex Judea and Samaria and put it under Israeli law? Sure. Make the Pals Israeli citizens? The majority would never accept it. And those whom did would be subject to bloody retaliation by Palestinian terrorists as 'collaborators' .

There's a far better solution,and one I've been repeating for what, fifteen years now? As desirable as Israel having all of Judea and Samaria might be, Oslo pretty much ended that, and swallowing the poison pill of 1.5 million mostly hostile Arab Muslims is no road to peace, no matter what the demographics favoring a Jew9ish majority.

This is about a divorce.

Israel should forget about the mythical two state solution, and simply delineate the borders it needs unilaterally. That would probably entail leaving Area A and perhaps a little more territory to the Palestinians to make whatever they wanted out of it, while annexing Area C, the Jordan Valley and any parts of Area B Israel deemed necessary. At that point, Israel could simply remove any Jews on the Arab side of the line to Israeli territory and any Arabs whom are not Israeli citizens to the Arab territory (perhaps with compensation for property), and then defend those borders appropriately, warning Abbas or whomever takes over that any attacks on Israeli territory or Israeli citizens will be dealt with appropriately.

The international feedback would certainly occur (after all, in much of the EU and UN anything short of a successful jihad against Israel is going to provoke that) but Abbas is already on record as having a totally rejectionist stance anyway, and that and having a 'Palestine' to point to point to would eventually make a lot of the international reaction fade away. As that old Middle East saying goes, the dogs bark and the caravan moves on.

Aside from cutting our Navy to pre WWII levels, President Obama's new military budget targets what weapons we have left.

The new Obama defense budget will abolish two of our most successful missile programs.Raytheorn's Tomahawk, probably the world's best and most effective cruise missile will be cut by $128 million under Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal and completely eliminated by fiscal year 2016, according to budget documents released by the Navy. Given the present average usage, there will be no Tomahawks left by 2018 at the latest.

Aside from the severe financial cuts, the Navy will be limited in the amount of actual Tomahawk missiles they are allowed to acquire, from 196 last year to just 100 in 2015, with no Tomahawks at all in 2016. This was probably included to make sure that no one tried to preserve the program by shifting funds from other areas.

According to Obama’s proposal, the Navy is also going to be forced to cancel any purchase of Hellfire missiles in 2015, one of our most effective tools of the trade.

The president and his team are mandating this change without a replacement missile currently ready to take the Tomahawk's place.There is a new missile currently in development, Lockheed Martin's Long Range Anti Ship Missile, but like Lockheed Martin's other dysfunctional product, the F-35, the Long Range Anti Ship Missile has been plagued with massive development costs and overruns, has vastly underperformed when tested and might not be fully ready to be deployed for as much as ten years.

Lockheed Martin, by the way, spent something like $14.5 million in lobbying, much of it aimed towards President Obama and Democrats. And the company has been credited in some corners as helping to deliver Virginia for Obama in 2012 by delaying planned layoff notices to workers, followed by a timely last minute Pentagon announcement just before the election that no Lockheed Martin contracts were going to be cut.Probably just one of those funny coincidences, I'm sure.

Considering how other countries like China, North Korea and Iran are actually working to improve their naval and anti-ship capabilities, killing off the Tomahawk and Hellfire along with the other severe cuts mandated for our Navy is the equivalent of running up the white flag when it comes to our global military dominance.

Well, imagine how you, personally, would inquire into the preferred course of action of Obamacare supporters. You might give them the options of "Work to improve it anyway," or "Stay out of the way of it/Let it collapse under its own weight," and so forth.

Here are the options -- two of them -- that Pew gave respondents to choose from:

What do you think elected officials who oppose the health care law should do now that the law has started to take effect? Should they [X] or should they [Y]?

Do what they can to make the law work as well as possibleDo what they can to make the law fail

Emphasis added.

In other words, people weren't given a 'repeal' option. Their choices were limited to tweaking this failed bit of socialist mayhem or sabotaging it.

Most people would still choose a less aggressive, underhanded-sounding response, like "Let it collapse under its own weight."

But Pew refuses respondents that choice, insisting that people either declare their desire to "make Obamacare work the best we can, by Golly!" or declare themselves hostage-taking terrorists of the sort often decried by one Harry Reid.

Why, you'd almost think that major institutions of the media are entirely captured by the political left or something.

It would be even more interesting to see whether Pew used another common tactic - vastly oversampling Democrats, or picking respondents from largely Democrat dominated urban areas.

Since Pew is self-funded, their polls normally are fairly legitimate,but obviously someone got to somebody here - almost certainly in response to a direct request from the White House.